1. Random Issues
Here are some brief replies to various issues:
Ralf writes:
> Euphoria is a stack-based interpreter
I don't know what that means. I think any
language interpreter will find stacks, call-stacks etc.
useful for various things, and will not depend only on the
machine stack.
Ralf writes:
> Arrays I want for the speed
Arrays would not be much faster than sequences.
Maybe 0 to 5 percent on typical operations.
Someone implied:
> [Euphoria insists on define-it before you use-it because
it makes life much easier for the implementer - otherwise you'd
need a 2-pass compiler.]
It would be very easy technically to allow forward references
without requiring any special pre-declarations.
Back in the pre-1.0 days I was considering doing this.
The compiler would just emit special internal opcodes
"call to yet-to-be-defined routine X", or "reference to yet-to-be-defined
variable Y". When the opcode was executed for the first time,
it would look up X or Y in the symbol table and replace itself with the
normal opcode for calling a routine, or referencing a variable.
some people wrote:
[namespaces - Euphoria is uniquely bad - name conflicts]
The namespace situation will definitely be improved, but
have a look at how C's namespace system works.
It's similar to, but in many ways worse than Euphoria's.
In C, *all* non-private symbols are *global* unless you explicitly
declare them "static". In Euphoria, non-private symbols
are local to the file, unless you explicitly declare them "global".
For programmers, lazy people that they are, this makes a
huge difference. Stroustrup has admitted that C should
have been done the other way. People have written C programs of
millions of lines of code. C was not "held back" from
becoming a major language because of this.
Someone wrote:
[Euphoria will never make it into the big leagues because
it lacks, X, Y, Z features of established languages]
Suppose *Euphoria* were the established language, and
suppose I had just invented C++. People would say C++ is
an obvious loser because:
* no subscript checking
* no uninitialized variable checking
* you have to compile and link after every small change
* no support for true dynamic storage allocation
* you have to declare the size and type of everything
* manual is over 1000 pages - no one will read it unless
they can get a job in it
Someone wrote:
[the price of Euphoria is too low]
The RDS corporate philosophy:
"We lose a little on each item, but we make up for it in quantity."
We were doing ok before the price cut, but
since cutting the price, we've seen a significant
increase in total dollars, so I guess we'll keep it low for now. 
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
2. Re: Random Issues
From: Rob Craig
>have a look at how C's namespace system works.
[...]
>People have written C programs of
>millions of lines of code. C was not "held back" from
>becoming a major language because of this.
True. But C has structs with their own sort-of namespace. How many
multi-million line programs don't use any structs? (you knew someone would
say that didn't you? <g>) However, I've seen some very good arguments
against hasty implementation of structures in the past couple of days. So
I'll go along with the "take your time and do it right and elegantly" crowd.
>Suppose *Euphoria* were the established language, and
>suppose I had just invented C++. People would say C++ is
>an obvious loser because:
[...]
> * manual is over 1000 pages - no one will read it unless
> they can get a job in it
Which is why I was enjoying programming in Euphoria within an hour of
downloading, whereas 2 years after purchasing C++, after 3 tries and finally
figuring out which manual (of 6, each around 600-1000 pages) to start with,
I'm still only very gradually (and somewhat painfully) beginning to understand
it.
>since cutting the price, we've seen a significant
>increase in total dollars
That is good to hear. But speaking of the business side, have you
thought about creating a Teach Yourself Euphoria in 21 Days book, or something
similar? It could ship with the PD edition, as that is suitable for learning.
And it would place Euphoria's name right up there next to C++, Java, Visual
Basic, and Delphi in the stores. Bookshelf exposure is exposure, after all.
Falkon
3. Re: Random Issues
>The namespace situation will definitely be improved, but
>have a look at how C's namespace system works.
>It's similar to, but in many ways worse than Euphoria's.
>In C, *all* non-private symbols are *global* unless you explicitly
>declare them "static". In Euphoria, non-private symbols
>are local to the file, unless you explicitly declare them "global".
>For programmers, lazy people that they are, this makes a
>huge difference. Stroustrup has admitted that C should
>have been done the other way. People have written C programs of
>millions of lines of code. C was not "held back" from
>becoming a major language because of this.
Spice Girls are very famous. They have sold well.
Does this make them good artists ?
Was MS-Dos really the best platform all those years ?
Are basic or C usefull languages ?
Again.. you're comparing Euphoria to C.
And popularity and quality have no relatingship what-so-ever. What do we
call the lack of such relationship ? Marketing/Brainwashing/etc. I mean,
these are the 90-ties, you invest in marketing rather than quality.
Im just rambling here. My point is the same as yours. C is very very popular
yet not as good as Euphoria.
>Suppose *Euphoria* were the established language, and
>suppose I had just invented C++. People would say C++ is
>an obvious loser because:
> * no subscript checking
> * no uninitialized variable checking
> * you have to compile and link after every small change
> * no support for true dynamic storage allocation
> * you have to declare the size and type of everything
> * manual is over 1000 pages - no one will read it unless
> they can get a job in it
Oh well, great. So, when Im having issues, I can at least enjoy the fact
that several professional C programmers are dealing with the same problem.
Its like in restaurant, I have terrible soup, and the cook would say 'in the
3rd world countries' they dont even have soup. Oh well.. maybe im just a bit
cranky this morning...
Ralf
4. Re: Random Issues
Scott Murray <FaIkon1313 at AOL.COM> wrote:
> That is good to hear. But speaking of the business side, have you
>thought about creating a Teach Yourself Euphoria in 21 Days book, or
something
>similar? It could ship with the PD edition, as that is suitable for
learning.
>And it would place Euphoria's name right up there next to C++, Java, Visual
>Basic, and Delphi in the stores. Bookshelf exposure is exposure, after
all.
>
>Falkon
This is a very good idea... but wouldn't it be called "Teach Yourself
Euphoria in 21 Minutes" ? 8^)
